Construction of Meaning During Conversion

Construction of Meaning during Conversion

Martsa Sándor

(University of Pécs, Department of English Linguistics)

Introduction

This paper continues to examine the nature of morpho-semantic processes underlying morphological conversion in English. Some of the results of this study have already been demonstrated in earlier publications (cf. Martsa 1997, 2002, 2006).

In the first part of the paper, after a few remarks made on productivity,a brief survey will be given of the current interpretations and scope of conversion in English. In the second part, the genesis of conversionwill be considered in the light of Lieber’s recent theory of lexical-semantic representation. This theory, especially her relisting hypothesis, offers an alternative approach to the derivational interpretation of conversion that assumes the operation of a zero affix. Also, it will be pointed out that Štekauer’s (1996) onomasiological theory of conversion based on recategorization can be viewed as a precursor of Lieber’s hypothesis. Probably, this is so, becausethe recategorization of things/animals/ humans as actions (e.g., (to) Moulinex, (to) ape, (to) Houdini), or vice versa, actions as events or humans involved in, or related to, the respective actions (e.g., (a) run, (a) cheat, (a) spy), and so on, indeed appear to be conceptual preconditions for syntactic relabelling typical of the word-formation process of conversion.

In Lieber’s theory two analytical tools are of utmost importance for the lexical-semantic representations of derivation, compounding, and conversion:the ‘skeleton’, a hierarchical arrangement of semantic features and arguments pertaining to these features, and the ‘body’, an encyclopedic or holistic representation of world knowledge. These tools will be briefly presented and, in line with both Lieber’s argument and previous work on conversion (cf. Clark & Clark 1979; Lehrer 1990), the suggestion will be made that the construction of meaningduring conversion is guided by the interaction of the lexical-semantic properties of parent lexemes[1] and the cognitive-pragmatic aspects of speech events in which converted items are employed.

1. The state of the art

Most recent research on conversion revolves around the following issues: the almost unlimited productivity of conversion and how it can be accounted for; the possible interpretations of conversion; the scope of conversion, that is to say, which word-formation processes can be subsumed under the scope of conversion; and, finally, the predictability of the meanings of conversion lexemes. Although this paper is mostly concerned with the last issue, semantic predictability, i.e. how meaning is constructed during conversion,the other issues should also be dealt with briefly.

1.1Productivity

As is known, conversion is a non-concatenative process where the lexical category of a lexeme like the nountree changes into another lexical category, say, into a verb (to) tree as in The dog treed the cat,without adding an (overt) affix to it. The result of this process is an output lexeme homophonous and homographic with the input lexeme. Usually the meaning of the latter is intuitively felt to be derivable from that of the former. The meaning of conversion verbs, for erxample, can be productively defined as a compositional function of the meaning of the corresponding nouns. For the representation of this type of conversion Booij (2002: 134-5) postulates the following template:

(1a)[[X]N]V ‘to V, with N playing a role in the action denoted by V’

This template may be easily modified and adjusted to the representations of adjective-to-verb, verb-to-noun, and noun-to-adjective conversions as well. Cp.:

(1b) [[X]A]V ‘to V, with A denoting the state brought about by V’

(1c) [[X]V]N ‘an N, involved in the action or state denoted by V’

(1d) [[X]N]A ‘(being) A, with N denoting a feature characteristic of Y’

As these templates suggest, conversion lexemes are either nouns (e.g., (a) run, (a) cheat, (a) spy) or adjectives (e.g., head [bookkeeper], test [driving], London[taxi]) or, most frequently, verbs.

Conversion, along with other forms of non-concatenative word-formation like back-formation, clipping, and blending, has become one of, if not, the most frequent and thus the most productive lexeme-forming techniques in English. However, Bauer’s remark that “[c]onversion is a totally free process and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as need arises”(1983: 226) signals that there is at least one important limitation imposed on the application of conversion: the output of it must be an open class item. Thus, whereas must can be converted into a must, a conversion auxiliary is (as yet) inconceivable.[2]Another restriction often mentioned in the corresponding literature is that complex nouns, especially of Germanic origin, undergo conversion to verbs much less frequently than simplex nouns (cf. Bauer ibid.; Don 2005).

The high productivity of conversion, especially noun-to-verb conversion, as repeatedly has been pointed out, among others,by Marchand (1969), Plag (1999, 2003), and Lieber (2004), is by no means unexpected; it is due to the lack of derivational means of forming verbs from nouns and adjectivesin present-day English. The verbalizing suffixes that are still productive to a certain extent are -ize (-ise), -ify (e.g., atomize, grammaticalize; justify, solidify), with -ify occurring mostly in technical uses. The suffixes -ate (e.g., demonstrate, negotiate) and -en (e.g. blacken, sharpen) are moribund or phonologically strongly constrained; the prefixes de- (e.g., debug, defrost), be- (e.g., befriend, belittle),and en- (e.g., endanger, entomb) are not particularly productive and, in addition, they are semantically highly constrained.

1.2How to interpretconversion?

Current interpretations of conversion vary according to the assumed underlying morpho-semantic mechanisms.

According to the most widespread interpretation conversion is considered a kind of derivation by means of a zero affix (cf. Marchand 1969; Kastovsky 1969, 1982; Pennanen 1971; Kiparsky 1982; Lipka 1990;Hale and Keyser 2002; Don 2005). The following proportional equation, taken from Marchand (1969) and frequently quoted by other authors dealing with conversion, is intended to prove that suffixation with a zero suffix is just like “real”, overt suffixation: cp. (2)

(2)

legal : legal/ize :: clean : clean/ø ‘make it A’

atom : atom/ize :: cash : cash/ø ‘convert into N’

The unsustainability of this view will be discussed in section 2.2.

Other, non-derivational views of conversion include Štekauer’s(1996) onomasiological approach and, in the generative paradigm,Lieber’s (2004) relisting hypothesis and Williams’s (1982) and Jensen’s (1990) rebracketing hypothesis. As for Štekauer’s and Lieber’s views,Martsa (2006) suggests that in specific types of conversion both recategorization and relistingare evoked by different cognitive processes.Finally, Clark & Clark’s classic study on nouns that surface as verbs represents a pragmatic approach to conversion.

Let us examine each view briefly. Štekauer’s onomasiological theory of conversion seeks to prove that linguistic processes proper are preceded by the conceptual reevaluation of objective reality. Namely, Štekauer states that “[i]t is the conceptual recategorization which provides us with the evidence that conversion cannot be identified with suffixation: conceptual recategorization is necessary for conversion while only possible for suffixation”(ibid., 47). Basic features of conversion in English, relevant for this paper, are (ibid., 46):[3]

conceptual recategorization
change of word class
close semantic affinity between conversion pair members
phonematic/orthographic identity of fundamental forms

In (3) a few examples are given for the types of conceptual recategorization identified by Štekauer:

(3)

Substance as Action (to) water

Process as Action (to) experiment

Circumstance as Action (to) limit

Quality as Action (to) feature

Action as Substanceinsert

Action as Person(a) cheat

Lieber formulates her relisting hypothesis concerning conversion as follows (Lieber ibid., 90):

The lexicon allows for the addition of new entries.
Conversion occurs when an item already listed in the lexicon is re-entered as an item of a different category.

As suggested earlier, it seems reasonable to suppose that in order for a lexeme to get relisted in the mental lexicon first it must be recategorized, that is to say, recategorization as a mental operation must be treated asa conceptual precondition for relisting. Recategorization in turn may be triggered by metonymic and metaphoric shifts or conceptual integration, also known as blending (cf. Martsa 2006). Below, in (4), conceptual metonymies taken from Kövecses & Radden (1998) are given:

(4)

instrument for action: (to) chain, (to) ski

object involved in the action for the action:(to) blanket (the bed), (to) nose(the rat)

means for an action: (to) butter (a slice of bread), (to) sneeze (the tissue off the table)

(Kövecses & Radden 1998)

Note thatŠtekauer’s examples mentioned in (3) can as well be taken to be instantiations of conceptual metonymies. Moreover, conversion verbs, e.g., (to) hare (off), (to) squirrel, formed from names for animals seem to have been motivated by the conceptual metaphor animals are humans and submetaphors pertaining to it such as people running fast are hares or people hiding things for later use are squirrels (Martsa 2006).

Conversion is also thought to arise from rebracketing (Williams 1982; Jensen 1990), an alternative way of representing recategorization. For an illustration, in(5) below we tentatively demonstrate how the conversion of the noun ring to the verb (to) ringtakes place through the deletion of internal brackets signaling category boundaries:

(5a) [X]N  [[X]N]V  [[X]N]V  [X]V

(5b) [ring]N  [[ring]N]V  [[ring]N]V  [ring]V

Finally, conversion is analyzed by Clark & Clark (1979) as innovative coinage (with its meaning constructed online) based on the pragmatic principle of cooperation labeled as the innovative denominal verb convention (ibid., 787). This is given in (6):

(6)

In using an innovative denominal verb sincerely, the speaker means to denote

a) a kind of situation

b) that he has good reason to believe

c) that on this occasion the listener can readily compute

d) uniquely

e) on the basis of their mutual knowledge

f) in such a way that the parent noun denotes one role in the situation, and the remaining surface arguments of the denominal verb denote other roles in the situation.

We will return to Clark & Clark’s interpretation of conversion and its relevance for Lieber’s lexical-semantic representation theory in section 2.

1.3The scope of conversion

Below, in (7), a list of conversion patterns is given.The list, being rather broad in scope, is adopted from Quirk et al. (1985) who consider the patterns in boldface marginal. Cp.:

(7a)

N-to-V:(to) elbow, (to) man

A-to-V:(to) better, (to) empty, (to) lower

N (shelf, calf, half)-to-V:(involving root allomorphy): ((to) shelve, calve, halve)

Complex N-to-V: (to) commission, (to) hostess; (to) streamline

Particle-to-V: (to) down, up, thwart

Vtrans -to-Vintrans:(to) sell cars, cars sell

Vintrans-to-Vtrans:(He) runs (every day), (He) runs (a company)

Nabstract/mass-to-Nconcrete/count:conversion (a type of word-formation), a conversion (an instance of converting); tea, a tea

(7b)

N-to-A:computer (program), head (bookkeeper)

Participle-to-A:(a) written exam, (an) exciting film

Adv-to-A:(the) then (president), above (suggestion)

(7c)

V-to-N:(a) run, (a) drive, (a) survey

A-to-N:(a) given, (a) daily, (the) rich,

P-to-N: (the) ins and outs, (the) ups and downs

Adv-to-N: (the) whys and wherefores,(the) hereafter

Prefix-to-N: (the) pros and cons

Auxiliary-to-N: (a) must

Phrase-to-N: (the) also-rans, (a) has-been

Due to constraints on space we will not address the question whether or not all processes mentioned in (7) unequivocally exemplify conversion. Mostof the authors mentioned in 1.2 explicitly concern themselves only with those cases of conversion where an open class item is converted to another open class item. From the patternsclassified as marginal in (7), some, for instance patterns involving changes only in subcategories, are treated by many morphologists as syntactic transposition. Similarly, noun-to-adjective conversion is also held to be the outcome of syntactic transposition (cf. Marchand 1969, Kastovsky 1982).[4]We will not pursue this issue here; suffice it to say that usually those category-changes yield conversions which take place in one, more or less clearly identifiable direction. Using this criterion, we can relatively safely distinguish conversion from homonymy (homomorphy) such as down (particle) and down (noun ‘small soft feathers’)[5]and multifunctionality or unmarked word-change represented, for instance, by round which can be a preposition as well as an adverb or a noun or a verb. Despite the category-changes and the obvious semantic link between the different uses of round, these words do not qualify for conversions due to the lack of clearly definable directionality (cf. Valera 2004).On the other hand, the underlined word in sentence (8), reportedly produced by George Bush at the G8 summit held in St. Petersburg in 2006, is undoubtedly an instance of conversionfrom a noun to an adjective (or participle), representing coinage in Clark & Clark’s sense.

(8)

I’m going to get a shower. I’m just about meeting’d out.

(NewsweekJuly 31, 2006; p.31)

If the criterion of directionality is right, Quirk et al.’s above list of conversion patterns in (7) is fully justifiable, since all of them comply with the criterion of directionality. From this follows that in a full account of English conversion the basic patterns mentioned in (1) and (7) and the non-basic patterns listed in (7) should equally be dealt with. In the second part of the paper, however, we will be concerned only with noun-to-verb conversion, which is generally believed to be the most frequent pattern in English.

2. The semantics of conversion

2.1 Skeletons and bodies: compounds and derivatives

In her book Morphology and Lexical Semantics(2004) Lieber outlines a lexical-semantic representation theory the main aim of which is to provide justifiable analytical tools to account for the lexical semantic processes underlying derivation, compounding, and conversion.

In the elaboration of her theory, she relies on previous work done in the field of lexical semantics and word-formation, notably on Jackendoff’s (1990), Pustejovsky’s (1995), Szymanek’s (1985) and Wierzbicka’s (1996) respective works on the lexicon and lexical semantics. Generally speaking, the main difference between her theory and the theories of othersis, she claims, that hers is intended to be cross-categorial in the sense that the semantic features and functions (e.g., [+/–dynamic], [+/–material], [+/–substances]) she manages to identify are applicable to different lexical categories of words, not only to verbs as for instance the semantic primitives Jackendoff makes use of in his work on Lexical Conceptual Structures. However, at the same time, her theory is comparable to other theories in that it, or at least one part of it, is also decompositional.

Lieber’s lexical-semantic representational theory has two components, more precisely, two analytical tools: the ‘skeleton’ and the ‘body’. The skeleton is the decompositional part of the representation and it is a hierarchicalarrangement of functions or features and arguments.

She assumes (ibid., 16) that not only verbs, but other major lexical categories are also argument taking. Following Williams (1981: 86), she claims that nouns take at least one argument, the so-called “R” argument, which can be satisfied either by an overt NP of which it is predicated or by a determiner (see Lieber ibid. and the references therein). “R” stands for ‘referential’, representing the referential function of NPs. In addition, it is important that the skeletonis meant to specify all and only those aspects of meaning that are projected to syntax.

This idea has also been anticipated in earlier works on word-formation, notably on conversion. Consider, for example, the pragmatic principle of Clark & Clark mentioned in the first part, especially requirement f) which states that the parent noun and the surface arguments of the denominal verb (i.e. in noun-to-verb conversions) play different roles in the situation designated by the verb. Also, Lehrer (1990), partly drawing on Clark & Clark (1979), classifies conversion verbs according to the semantic (theta) roles the corresponding parent nouns may play in the lexical-semantic representation. Thus, there are, for example, agentive verbs like (to) butcher, (to) father, (to) modelwhose parent nouns specify the (prototypical) agents of the actions designated by the verbs.

As we have seen in the introduction, the other part of the representation is the body which, according to Lieber, is the encyclopedic or holistic representation of knowledge underlying the semantics of lexical items, and, unlike the skeleton, it is nondecompositional (ibid., 10). We will say more about the body later.

Lieber consciously use an anatomical metaphor in outlining her theory. It is the skeleton, she argues, that “[…] forms the foundation of what we know about morphemes and words.” Also, it is the skeleton that makes it possible to extend the lexicon by means of different word-formation processes. The body, our knowledge of the world,“fleshes out”, as it were, this foundation. As is typical of knowledge in general as well, the body can be fatter or thinner from word to word, “[…] and indeed from the lexical representation of a word in one person’s mental lexicon to the representation of that “same” word in another individual’s mental lexicon.” A living lexical item must have a body and as the life of the lexical item changes, so does its body. In Lieber’s words it can “[…] gain and lose weight”. Unlike bodies, skeletons change to a lesser extent over time. It would be impossible and perhaps unnecessary to go into further details of this theory here, therefore, we finish the introduction of it by looking at some examples.

First, (9)demonstrates the slightly modified lexical-semantic representations of the skeletons and the bodies of dog and bed and the verb drive adopted from Lieber (ibid., 52, 55). Then, in (10) and (11) respectively, the skeletons of the compound dog bed and the derivative philosophize are given.

(9a)(9b)

dogbed

skeleton[+material ([ R ])][+material ] ([ R ])]

body<natural<artifact>

<animate<furniture>

<canine<horizontal surface>

(9c)

drive

skeleton[+dynamic ([ ], [ ])])]

body<activity>

As we can see, dog and bed have similar skeletons, i.e. they have the same semantic feature, in fact both are common count nouns, but they differ in how their “R” arguments are discharged. This difference is also reflected in their bodies: a dog is a natural kind (an animal), whereas a bed is a cultural kind (an artifact). As regards (to) drive, its semantic feature [+dynamic] is discharged by two arguments indicated by the empty slots. As expected in the case of transitive verbs in general, the two arguments projected to the syntax are agentand theme.

In Lieber’s theory the meaning of complex lexemes is determined by the interaction of theskeletons of bases (=simple lexemes) in compounds, and, on the other hand, skeletons of bases and derivational affixes in derivation. A major tool in the representation of this interaction is co-indexation which is meant to account for the fact thatan argument in the skeleton of the head, which is usually the righthand element of a complex lexeme, binds an argument in the skeleton of the respective base or nonhead. This is shown in (10) and (11) (see Lieber ibid., 52, 87):

(10)

dog bed

[+material ([i R ])][+material ] ([i R ])]